Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion
-
I feel like SDS introduced the 125 attribute cap as a mechanism to meter out quality cards more slowly. Raising the cap to 125 allows more "in between steps" than having a 99 cap. It's why all of our headliners lost relevance in a week or two, for the most part.
From a business standpoint, I get it. More wiggle room until "end game" means more opportunity to create content to sell.
But from an end user perspective, it makes the volume and quality of content feel both overwhelming and pointless at times, respectively.
It also strongly devalues LS cards in terms of usability, which is a drag.
-
I don't think they can go back without so many cards seeming like trash, we'd get used to it after a year, but that's a year of people complaining "Why didn't X get 99 contact, he batted .675 against lefties on Tuesdays in May"
-
@LankyRyan said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
I feel like SDS introduced the 125 attribute cap as a mechanism to meter out quality cards more slowly. Raising the cap to 125 allows more "in between steps" than having a 99 cap. It's why all of our headliners lost relevance in a week or two, for the most part.
From a business standpoint, I get it. More wiggle room until "end game" means more opportunity to create content to sell.
But from an end user perspective, it makes the volume and quality of content feel both overwhelming and pointless at times, respectively.
It also strongly devalues LS cards in terms of usability, which is a drag.
Majority of LS cards were all outclassed within a month. I would love to see LS Trout on an end game lineup.
-
@Ikasnu said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Majority of LS cards were all outclassed within a month. I would love to see LS Trout on an end game lineup.
Yes! The only difference between Trout this season and the year his MVP card is from is that he may actually be better this year. No reason his LS shouldn’t be endgame.
-
I don’t mind the 100 plus contact but the power is over rated. The game doesn’t play right, you have guys with 120 power but they hit warning track fly balls, then the 65/75 power guy comes in and hits a no doubter 450 ft.
-
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
SDs really need to boost live Series attributes. A handful of the best live Series cards should compete with end game cards, even if they just scale them as the season goes. Like Trout starts the year as a 95 but goes up to a 99 by the end of the regular season.
They seem to era adjust all the old cards, but don't era adjust live Series cards to match.
-
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
SDs really need to boost live Series attributes. A handful of the best live Series cards should compete with end game cards, even if they just scale them as the season goes. Like Trout starts the year as a 95 but goes up to a 99 by the end of the regular season.
They seem to era adjust all the old cards, but don't era adjust live Series cards to match.
And there is a reason for that, if you can buy LS cards that are end-game day one, why would you need to upgrade your team later? Obviously talking about that from a business perspective, not a consumer. They can't sell you 99 Trout later on if the LS gets there,
-
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
I agree, but that's the thing; this isn't the case and hasn't been the case ever since they implemented the 125 scale in 18. They did however feel more accurate and representative in 17 for example, the difference between 90 power or 95 power was noticable in my opinion.
-
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
-
@ComebackLogic said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
Completely agree and this is a problem, but the reason they did it is because we complained about lineup diversity. To create lineup diversity they have to give multiple options at each position with similar attributes, which lead to more power creep.
To help with this it would be nice if they added gap power attributes. Cobb should be able to rip doubles and triples but home runs should be relatively rare. I think this would help make contact hitters more viable again.
I think everyone agrees they screwed up the balancing in 18, it was HR or nothing. In 19 it was way better balance, contact hitters were viable. 20 has stepped back closer to 18 where power is king.
SDS needs to make the tiers of power levels feel a bit different. you are certainly right that you should be able to tell the difference between a 120 power and a 110 power.
No matter what scale is used, if power is king, there will be a minimum viable power threshold that a card needs to be in your lineup regardless of whatever scale is used.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
I agree, but that's the thing; this isn't the case and hasn't been the case ever since they implemented the 125 scale in 18. They did however feel more accurate and representative in 17 for example, the difference between 90 power or 95 power was noticable in my opinion.
Completely agree they screwed it up in 18. Attributes aren't the only factor though, swing / stance, quirks, pitch type and location, swing timing, pci placement and movement, etc all play into how the ball comes off the bat. Some players play above and some play well below thier attributes (I hate Ripken.....).
-
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@ComebackLogic said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
Completely agree and this is a problem, but the reason they did it is because we complained about lineup diversity. To create lineup diversity they have to give multiple options at each position with similar attributes, which lead to more power creep.
To help with this it would be nice if they added gap power attributes. Cobb should be able to rip doubles and triples but home runs should be relatively rare. I think this would help make contact hitters more viable again.
I think everyone agrees they screwed up the balancing in 18, it was HR or nothing. In 19 it was way better balance, contact hitters were viable. 20 has stepped back closer to 18 where power is king.
SDS needs to make the tiers of power levels feel a bit different. you are certainly right that you should be able to tell the difference between a 120 power and a 110 power.
No matter what scale is used, if power is king, there will be a minimum viable power threshold that a card needs to be in your lineup regardless of whatever scale is used.
I am with you here. I survive on my pitching skills and will put them up with most anyone. But I am tired of games when I give up 2-3 hits in 9 innings and all of them are solo home runs. Seems like 70% plus of hits this year are homers, and although we had a record for home runs hit last year, they have gone way too far.
-
@OreoRockstar said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@ComebackLogic said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
As said, they raised the cap to 125 so that players like Babe Ruth really stood out from everyone else, there was a palpable difference between the good players who may well deserve 99 ratings in various categories and the all time legends of the game who were truly outstanding and therefore warranted stats that went to 125.
They then immediately undermined that concept by handing out 125 to every Tom, [censored] and Harry, from made up Future Stars cards to Topps Now single game flashback versions of current day players. Now, Babe Ruth is apparently on a par with, or slightly inferior to, a whole host of cards, including such luminaries of the game as Jose Abreu, Trent Grisham and of course, everyone’s all time player, the great Adam Duvall. Way to make those true legends stand out, SDS! You’ve successfully utilised the 125 cap to make the real legends stand out from the crowd. Who’d like to see stats that go to 150 next year?!?!? Huzzah!
Completely agree and this is a problem, but the reason they did it is because we complained about lineup diversity. To create lineup diversity they have to give multiple options at each position with similar attributes, which lead to more power creep.
To help with this it would be nice if they added gap power attributes. Cobb should be able to rip doubles and triples but home runs should be relatively rare. I think this would help make contact hitters more viable again.
I think everyone agrees they screwed up the balancing in 18, it was HR or nothing. In 19 it was way better balance, contact hitters were viable. 20 has stepped back closer to 18 where power is king.
SDS needs to make the tiers of power levels feel a bit different. you are certainly right that you should be able to tell the difference between a 120 power and a 110 power.
No matter what scale is used, if power is king, there will be a minimum viable power threshold that a card needs to be in your lineup regardless of whatever scale is used.
I am with you here. I survive on my pitching skills and will put them up with most anyone. But I am tired of games when I give up 2-3 hits in 9 innings and all of them are solo home runs. Seems like 70% plus of hits this year are homers, and although we had a record for home runs hit last year, they have gone way too far.
The community at large are as much to blame as SDS for this shitshow. When they show a clear propensity for 3 inning all star games at Shippet, either because they want to say “Hurr, Durr, look how many bombs I hit, that’s freakin’ awesome! I’m a great hitter!”, or because they’re naively trying to emulate things they’ve seen popular streamers do, like “get rewarded” by playing at Shippet, where a jam pop fly would turn into a wall scraping homer down the line, SDS assume people are lapping it up. Hence we get more 125 power cards rammed down our throats and gameplay is HR or bust.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
-
@eatyum said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@agent512 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
The problem isn't the scale. The scale can be whatever SDS wants, what matters is that the attributes properly balance and play to expectations.
SDs really need to boost live Series attributes. A handful of the best live Series cards should compete with end game cards, even if they just scale them as the season goes. Like Trout starts the year as a 95 but goes up to a 99 by the end of the regular season.
They seem to era adjust all the old cards, but don't era adjust live Series cards to match.
And there is a reason for that, if you can buy LS cards that are end-game day one, why would you need to upgrade your team later? Obviously talking about that from a business perspective, not a consumer. They can't sell you 99 Trout later on if the LS gets there,
I completely understand, SDS is going to do what can make them the most money. Shiny new cards are always fun and can get people to buy stubb's.
It would just be nice if the top 2-3 pitchers and 2-3 position players were viable throughout the year. It would still get people to spend money because trout would be 800k instead of 200k. But then maybe fewer people try to complete the live Series collections or complain that some cards are way too expensive. I don't know what the answer is.
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️. -
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
-
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
Then practice what you preach to others and do it. Future Stars don't count though 🤪
-
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@Chuck_Dizzle29 said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
@raesONE said in Go back to the 99 attribute cap - opinion:
Increasing the hitting attribute cap to 125 gave SDS more creative possibilities to value current and former players' hitting abilities. On paper the 125 cap looked really good, in fact maybe better than the former 99 cap. But in my opinion it doesn't work well and I would like for them to abandon the 125 cap and go back to 99.
My biggest reasoning behind it is this: we all look for certain thresholds in cards. Whether it's for power or contact. Me personally, I would preferably like the contact numbers to be at least 100 and the power numbers at least 90. Is it a huge dealbreaker if those numbers aren't met? Not really I guess but I would think twice for sure. But if you convert those 100 and 90 numbers back to the 99 scale, they're not all that impressive either.
100 contact on a 125 cap scale would mean 79 contact on a 99 cap scale (79,2 to be exact which will be a 79 attribute and not 80).
90 power on a 125 cap scale would mean 71 power on a 99 cap scale.There is no chance I would ever use a card with 79 contact and 71 power as mid or end game cards back in 15, 16 and 17. No chance at all.
Even more elite cards, like the new WS reward Albert Pujols, would have 88 contact and power versus righties and 93 contact and power versus lefties. This is 99 Albert Pujols we're talking about in his MVP 2009 season.
I could go on and on with examples of player cards who end up with numbers way too low when you convert them back to the 99 scale. And I understand why they chose for this. It's because they want guys like Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to really stand out above the rest, like a true elite tier of hitters. The question is do they really though, solely based on this new 125 scale? In my opinion the answer is no, they do not.
So why not drop the concept entirely and go back to that 99 scale, which worked fine, and give Pujols the 95-99 hitting stats he deserves.
Luis has explained before there isn't any conversion from the 99 scale to the 125 scale in DD. .300 average equals 99 contact. So a .300 average would have 99 contact on either scale. I believe .340 is the benchmark for 125 contact.
That applies for any stat hitting or pitching.
The 125 scale does do a good job of creating some distinction between cards. It does hurt lineup diversity some. I would prefer it stays though.
Luis can say many things, the math speaks for itself. I'm sure there are many cards who were given 99 contact or higher, in this year's game or in previous years where the 125 cap was implemented, but didn't average .300 (or higher).
I didn't think you subscribed to tinfoil hat theories
️.I think you got things mixed up. Following actual math is the opposite of tinfoil hat theories. They can market their new concept any way they want, that doesn't mean I have to believe every word they say. I could prove this too by just looking for a card who has 99 contact or higher but didn't actually hit .300 in that year.
Then practice what you preach to others and do it. Future Stars don't count though 🤪
Okay. Josh Donaldson, 2015 MVP card. Didn't hit .300 average against either side (.296 and .299) per baseball-reference. Yet has 102 contact vs righties and 104 contact vs lefties.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=donaljo02&year=2015&t=b
